>Built poorly by people with no prior experiences
>Proceeds to stomp the shit out of everyone
How.
>Built poorly by people with no prior experiences. >Proceeds to stomp the shit out of everyone
>Built poorly by people with no prior experiences
>Proceeds to stomp the shit out of everyone
How.
I am honestly surprised we don't have more modern semi submersible missile boats.
What is a SSB(N) for 200 dollars, Alex? If you're gonna go through the trouble of making it able to survive under the water, there's no reason to stop with just 10 feet of water.
>there's no reason to stop with just 10 feet of water.
you are fucking retarded
Because they're far worse and vulnerable to flooding. The only advantage is against dumb shells. An ASM can attack the deck and will sink it faster.
Frenchs tried to do 'conical ships' but they were inherently inferior to normal ships.
>loses to a ship with 1 gun
lol, lamo even
Lose to a sea condition that HMS Warrior can handles like walking on bedroom carpet.
Lmao amerimutts
>the USS New Ironsides got blown up by a floating cigar
yank cope
>floating
>floating
why, yes
>The submarine adjusts its depth by varying its weight.
returned to the sea floor under its own power
The Monitor's failure to beat the CSS Shitbox (1 mile turning radius btw) is a terrible blight on that ships legacy.
That''s just how an entirely new paradigms in warfare work. Sometimes you BTFO everyone. and sometimes you fail horribly and second-mover advantage happens.
It was a new design that no one had ever fought before and conventional tactics didn't work. Even if it wasn't a good design.
>Be proud south carolina boy
>Union navy blocking your ports
>Broke af
>have old ship plus some iron plates lying around
>idea
>proceed to make every navy in the world obsolete.
>as long as we're fighting in rivers
it still pwnt ppl
>proceed to make every navy in the world obsolete.
Only in rivers, again
it was cool anon
stop being lame
It was cool until a gentle wave flooded the ports
rude
1. it was ugly
2. only useful in rivers
No, no, Anon. Rivers and CALM oceans too!
It was never intended to go to sea. Virginia was meant to clear the harbor and defeat the blockade. They had many experimental projects going after the same goal. We also got the first semi submersible steam torpedo boats, (The Davids) and the very first functional military submarine (CSS Hunley) out of these projects.
The south also employed a large variety of harbor defense craft and river gunboats, the latter of which were mostly casemate designs just like Virginia. The Union used them too.
Due to the overwhelming advantage of the union navy in numbers, all the seagoing confederate cruisers were used as commerce raiders and only rarely even returned to the CSA proper.
TLDR it was a strange ship with a singular, non ocean going purpose and both sides used vessels of similar design.
to make every navy in the world obsolete.
NO
the fight between monitor and virginia was a histroci event because it was the first time two ironclad warships had fought each other, but neither monitor nor virginia was particularly impressive as ships went and both france and the royal navy had built Ironclad warships already, and unlike the USN or confederate ironclads the british ones were ocean going.
now you could make the claim that HMS warrior had indeed made every other navy in the world obsolete when she launched as there was certainly no ship in the world that could withstand her, but virginia was a technological and desgin dead end and Monitor was more innovative in the use of turrets the turret was decades from being practical for ocean going warships
If anything, the battle just proved to the world that they needed bigger guns
Disruptive Technology.
Textbook example.
Seagoing ironclads were already widespread before the civil war but nobody had fought with one yet. The low freeboard and slope made it a bit harder to deal with, and unsuited to the ocean, but ironclads were normally around 4-5 inches of iron at that point and USS Monitor wasn't different. The battle of Lissa, another early ironclad battle, is why all the navies of the world started to think rams might be a good idea but they weren't.
Only fought other shit tier american ships. Warrior would have put her to the bottom without a flinch.
Doubtful. Ships with a design similar to Warrior were employed by the Austrians and Italians at Lissa and they had to resort to ramming. If anything, the citadel design and larger target area of Warrior might give Virginia a chance to inflict some damage, as many of Warrior's guns were mounted in unarmored sections of the vessel.
To add, HMS Warrior's bow and stern were unarmored. While she possessed watertight compartments to limit flooding, there was no protection for Warrior's steering gear or screw shaft. If Virginia could have successfully disabled Warrior's steering or propulsion, it would have given the confederate ship a chance to better dictate the engagement.
>if
>if it could have
This is wishful thinking and cope. Admit that warrior is vastly superior
The use of they hypothetical is to indicate we are speculating about an engagement that never occurred. Warrior was never even in combat so we have no indication of how she would actually perform.
>a chance to better dictate the engagement.
at most a chance to run, warrior had a better chance of penetrating virginias armoured portions than vice versa and a massive speed and manoeuvrability advantage, warrior would be dictating the engagement.
>Warrior was never even in combat so we have no indication of how she would actually perform
thats not entirely accurate, her guns were tested, and firing drills were a regular thing, her armour was tested - or at least sample assemblies of the same armour were tested. and she was in service for a while meaning her general handling characteristics are well known.
its like saying we dont know how a F22 would perform in air to air combat. sure all its done air to air so far is shoot a balloon but the damn things have been tested pretty thoroughly and the weapons systems etc are all known quantities. we dont know EXACTLY just how well they would do but we do know enough to confidently say 'pretty damn well' ditto with HMS Warrior as regards her contemporaries, she was fast, well armoured and well armed with a well trained crew, every indications suggests she would have performed very well.
Noooooo stfu muh heckin slave built pile of shit crewed by illiterate hicks was totally better than warrior stfu stfu
4.5 inches of good armour backed onto 18 inches of teak for shock absorption - prevents bolt sheering and spalling- down to below the water line and blocking the ends of the box, nothing virginia had could penetrate the armoured bx and outside of steering gear nothing vital was outside of warriors box citadel
the austrians resorted to ramming because they had a smaller and weaker fleet with fewer and generally smaller guns and frankly at that point in time armour was winning the gun vs armour arms race.
Virginia's casemate was 4 inches of iron backed by 24 inches of wood. It's likely none of Warrior's guns could penetrate her either.
This is why early ironclad engagements were indecisive, nobody had developed the explosive shells necessary to destroy an armored target. That leaves these two stalemated, with Virginia trying to cross Warrior's T to get at her bow or stern, and Warrior throwing broadsides trying to piece Virginia below the waterline.
>Virginia's casemate was 4 inches of iron backed by 24 inches of wood.
mostly pine , pine is great for framing a building, or building cheap furniture, but there is a reason it wasnt used much for warships Teak is much much tougher, and 4 inches of iron is nice but would you bet on 4 inches of iron scavenged up in a hurry and made by a foundry that couldnt even handle 4 inch plates and used 2 inch plates sandwhiched together or 4.5 inches of hammered homogenous plate
Actually. Monitor could have penetrated Virginia with her guns. They were using solid shot at less than 1/4th of the powder charge the gun could have taken. They didn’t know that at the time obviously, but it was a new gun that had not been extensively tested. With a full charge it likely could have defeated any contemporary Ironclad’s armor, including Warrior. That’s simply the gun though, and gun designs rapidly improved after this alongside armor.
>Be a glorified floating battery with a bigger engine
Virginia vs Monitor will always be funny
>two blind retards spot each other
>proceed to start duking it out
>neither party's guns can penetrate the other
>crew goes deaf from being constantly rung like a bell
>turret jams on Monitor
>millions of attempted rams, nobody wins at that due to being fat slow retards
>both go home and claim victory
>Monitor was supposed to sink Virginia
>Virginia was supposed to break blockade
>neither of these things happened
You forgot the Monitor 360ing the turret
The sóyth lost and will never rise again
PoC have the equal rights they deserve (but work remains on reparations and prison reform)
You will never marry and reproduce
>have armor that no gun could penetrate; yes that includes the Dahlgren guns since they hadn't figured out they could double the gunpowder until later experiments were done with the guns
>win any engagement with unarmored ships